Liberty

I think that's a likely scenario. Also nice to get this cash at a time when the stock is low (buybacks).

EU approval for the Netherlands JV: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-03/vodafone-gets-eu-approval-for-dutch-deal-on-network-sale-offer-ireyw3cp

No sure that's really an option and a precedent you want to create (how do you "prove" fitness?). But I certainly feel uneasy with Trump line of questioning on nuclear weapons: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html Buffett has always been very worried about nuclear weapons. It's not surprising that he's campaigning more in this election than he did in the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/dealbook/the-activist-and-herbalife-just-maybe-ackmans-a-hero.html

I don't want to do something that might be against the terms of use of my VIC account. (check your PMs, though)

Bought as much as was feasible in the beginning of june ($139.11 average), sold a little bit around $150 a few weeks later, got cashed out yesterday at $159.82. 15% return in 8 weeks for a low-risk merger. I hope a few others managed to pick up a few shares as well. I'd say the lack of replies means a no to the last part of your post :P Not entirely alone: https://alphavulture.com/2016/07/27/mty-food-group-closes-acquisition-of-kahala-brands/

I find it unusual that the EU regulators approve things much faster than the US regulator. Compare the timeline for CHTR, TWC merger, with this one, and with CWC and Liberty Global. Regulatory environment for cable is actually much better in Europe than in the USA.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vodafone-group-m-a-liberty-global-eu-idUSKCN10921A

Q2 is out: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2189739

Does Eric have a YouTube channel? I think he does! He gets down to business at just under a minute.... What did I just see :o

Looks like HCG isn't doing too well, which isn't what you would expect in a red hot market. Canary in the coal mine?

Speaking of OTC, stock down 6% on earnings: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-267TY1/2370027920x0x901721/EBEE3204-9C98-47E4-A077-F343ED45D6BC/OTEX_News_2016_7_27_Financial_Releases.pdf

Q2: http://investor.mastercard.com/investor-relations/investor-news/press-release-details/2016/MasterCard-Incorporated-Reports-Second-Quarter-2016-Financial-Results/default.aspx

It's not even about other areas. Without the government's intervention over the past 10-15 years, it's doubtful things would've gotten quite as bad. The period of zero money down for 40-year mortgages (which has now been changed to 5% down for 25 years), low interest rates, low oversight of lending and real estate industry, etc... These are all policy choices too.

Q2: http://www.csisoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/PR_Q2_2016.pdf

Like any good subscription business, SIRI tracks very closely churn numbers and does customer surveys to find out why people subscribe and why they unsubscribe. According to management, streaming basically doesn't even register. When people leave, it's to go back to FM radio, and the main reason is basically "I don't want to pay anymore". Paid streaming alternatives aren't that much cheaper, as you pointed out, but they also aren't as user-friendly in the car. It's harder to change "channels" than on a SIRI radio that is integrated in the car, and you don't get a lot of what people subscribe to SIRI of (talk, sports, special live events), plus if you listen to many hours per month, you'll use a lot of data on your phone plan, and if you live in more rural areas (which includes a lot of people who drive long distances, a big SIRI demographic), cell coverage can be spotty. The UX and such will no doubt improve with things like Apple's CarPlay, but that's another thing that will only roll out over years and SIRI can also use CarPlay to augment its offering. Streaming is a technology, not a product. It can be used by SIRI competitors and it can be used by SIRI to augment what it already offers or offer replay and non-linear features, etc. But the product that Spotify and Pandora and Apple Music offer is different from the product that SIRI offers. Another option that SIRI has is to create some "free" ad-supported channels that are unlocked even for non-subscribers. Might be a way to attract new paying subscribers and to generate more ad revenue. Could be nice as long as properly balanced with the sub business (don't want to offer too much and cannibalize it).

Thanks for sharing, I was curious about it after you mentioned it on Twitter. Cheers!

Actually, I picked the name Liberty before I had heard of John Malone, it's just a happy coincidence. I'll just say that I bought some Liberty Global recently...

EV/EBITDA about 15. Seems way too expensive to me. What do you think? Regarding its moat, do you think it is so hard to lease some bandwidth from launched satellite to provide a similar service? I find it weird that DISH or DirectTV is not doing this. On the other hand, P/FCF of 13 seems reasonable. Not all EBITDA is created the same. Look at the tax situation for the next few years. SIRI isn't about just bandwidth/spectrum (and they have a bunch of that too, excess capacity if they consolidate that could be worth a lot someday). It's about having relationships with car OEMs so that they put your hardware in their vehicles (which takes years because of long development cycles) and having content that people want (talk radio stars, sports, music), and bundling it in a way that is very easy to use because the target demographic just wants to press play and not have to worry about it. And because of the high fixed costs of the business (for spectrum, satellites, content, auto OEM hardware subsidies), any competitor would lose money for years and years before building up the installed base and getting enough subscribers, and they probably couldn't outbid SIRI for content unless they use another existing business to finance it (but then, that would make that other business suffer, so you'd need patient shareholders). XM and Sirius when they were separate companies weren't profitable and just bid up content on each other. I don't think there's going to be another satellite radio provider in the US, and now SIRI is getting into connected car stuff and wants to integrate LTE modems into its hardware to have more non-linear features... The biggest competitor by far is free terrestrial radio. The more they can differentiate from it and improve on the experience, the more FM listeners they'll attract. There's also a big opportunity (IMO) in the used car market, which is just starting to see more sat radios trickle down into it.

For those who like graphs: https://sixcolors.com/post/2016/07/apples-q3-in-charts-and-commentary/

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/canadas-economy-is-hostage-to-the-housing-bubble-2/

Same.

When Jobs said this, everyone in Silicon Valley thought he was nuts. Now, it looks like he was right. How can Dropbox survive, as a standalone company, against Google Drive, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Box... Box lost $200M on $300M in revenue. Are they winning share because they have the best product or because they are irrationally chasing growth? Is this a sustainable business? -- But this doesn't answer the core question. Are enterprises ripping out their OTEX implementations and replacing them with Box? Or is Box attacking a different niche? I think there's two things to untangle. Is it a business or a feature, and if it's a business, is it a good one? If it was just a feature, it would've gotten killed as soon as the OS owners added the feature to their platforms, giving people a more convenient default options. But Dropbox and Box are still popular despite iCloud Drive and Microsoft Sky Drive (or whatever it's called) and Google Drive. Part of it is first mover's advantage/name recognition, part of it is being more full-featured (esp. Box with its focus on the enterprise), or known as being more reliable or user-friendly, etc. But all this competition and the lack of what seems to be a durable competitive advantage means that it's probably not a good business... A lot of things are more than features yet won't ever be very profitable businesses. I think the best hope of companies like Dropbox and Box is to keep growing like crazy for a while and then being acquired by a giant with a platform that could plug them in and use their cloud expertise on other things. In that sense, it might be rational for them to sacrifice profitability to chase market share. Whatsapp did pretty well by becoming big enough quickly enough that a giant felt it had to buy them out (I'm not saying that these companies will be valued as highly as Whatsapp). No opinion on Open Text, but it's a business that I've been slowly learning about because Turtle Creek likes them and I tend to trust their judgement.

Do you have any evidence of this? Steve Jobs once called DropBox "a feature, not a product". Box seems like a feature, not a business. I think that back when Jobs said this - after trying to buy Dropbox, IIRC - he probably was right. But since then businesses like Box, and the enterprise world, has changed. There's now more compliance and collaboration stuff that is integrated into Box. I still don't know how good a business that makes them, but I just wanted to add a reminder to keep what Jobs said in the context of the time when he made the remark.

Q2 results: http://investor.siriusxm.com/investor-overview/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/SiriusXM-Reports-Second-Quarter-2016-Results/default.aspx